Hello all!

[DavidMcCann]

I've been an astrologer for longer than I care to think about, but I've rather dropped out of the community in recent years. You can read a few old articles of mine by searching at
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/

[wilsontc]

David,

Welcome to the AW Forum!

Welcoming,

Tim

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann

I've been an astrologer for longer than I care to think about,
but I've rather dropped out of the community in recent years.
You can read a few old articles of mine by searching at
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/

Hello, welcome DavidMcCann
re: any of those few old articles over on Skyscript
one wonders whether your thinking on any of those topics has altered/varied slightly
or perhaps time simply validated all

[DavidMcCann]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

re: any of those few old articles over on Skyscript
one wonders whether your thinking on any of those topics has altered/varied slightly or perhaps time simply validated all

Not much! Of course, there was a difference between original work and the sort of thing where Deb would ring me and ask for a piece on something.

One thing that has changed is that people calling themselves traditional astrologers have become as dogmatic as the sort of people who used to criticise us as a bunch of medievalists! If you look at the articles in Traditional Astrologer, you can see that we drew the line at minor aspects and outer planets ruling signs, but we all used the outer planets when appropriate.

Our traditionalism was
> rejection of innovation based on theory rather than fact
> refusal to discard ideas just to keep up with the latest intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) fads
> a belief that astrology had to stand on it's own feet. As Deb once wrote, "Astrology should be based on a study of astrology. No other skill, no matter how admirable, will lead to the correct interpretation of a horoscope."

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann

Not much! Of course, there was a difference between original work and the sort of thing where Deb would ring me and ask for a piece on something.

One thing that has changed is that people calling themselves traditional astrologers have become as dogmatic as the sort of people who used to criticise us as a bunch of medievalists! If you look at the articles in Traditional Astrologer, you can see that we drew the line at minor aspects and outer planets ruling signs,

but we all used the outer planets when appropriate.

would be interested to learn
how you all 'used outer planets appropriately'
within the context of traditional astrology

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann

Our traditionalism was
> rejection of innovation based on theory rather than fact
> refusal to discard ideas just to keep up with the latest intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) fads
> a belief that astrology had to stand on it's own feet. As Deb once wrote, "Astrology should be based on a study of astrology. No other skill, no matter how admirable, will lead to the correct interpretation of a horoscope."

your definition is modern astrology

[DavidMcCann]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

your definition is modern astrology

According to you; not according to me or many other traditionalists. End of conversation, I think.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann

According to you;

not according to me or many other traditionalists.
End of conversation, I think.

Exactly

You have your opinion,
which some other astrologers share
but that does not mean your opinion is necessarily "traditional"

[tsmall]

David, I missed welcoming you to the forum. I have read many of your articles published elsewhere. This is a wonderful place to spark new minds to all things astrology. I sincerely hope you stay a spell.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by tsmall

David, I missed welcoming you to the forum. I have read many of your articles published elsewhere. This is a wonderful place to spark new minds to all things astrology. I sincerely hope you stay a spell.

I missed it too. Welcome!

[david starling]

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann

According to you; not according to me or many other traditionalists. End of conversation, I think.

I have this "tree metaphor" for Astrology: Traditional as the roots, Modern for the branches, and the trunk for how they connect. All versions that are carefully considered, and that work for the Astrologers using them, are valid in this context. The label just depends on where you are on the tree for any given purpose. It's not necessary to stay in one place, but there may be one you prefer most (or least). [IMO] A Trad (who most prefers the roots) should avoid being a stick in the mud, and a Mod (who most prefers a particular branch) shouldn't get TOO airy-fairie.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by david starling

I have this "tree metaphor" for Astrology:
Traditional as the roots,

Without roots there are no branches

Originally Posted by david starling

Modern for the branches,
and the trunk for how they connect.

Without roots there is no trunk
for the branches to do their branching

Originally Posted by david starling

All versions that are carefully considered, and that work for the Astrologers using them,
are valid in this context.
The label just depends on where you are on the tree for any given purpose.
It's not necessary to stay in one place,
but there may be one you prefer most (or least). [IMO]
A Trad
(who most prefers the roots)
should avoid being a stick in the mud,

Ironically "mud" aka earth is essential for roots to thrive
and thus the trunk to thrive
and so on and so forth ad infinitum

Originally Posted by david starling

and a Mod
(who most prefers a particular branch)
shouldn't get TOO airy-fairie.

I await your exposition on twigs

[Bunraku]

Welcome to the forum!
Loving your posts. Keep it up.

[Bunraku]

Originally Posted by david starling

I have this "tree metaphor" for Astrology: Traditional as the roots, Modern for the branches, and the trunk for how they connect. All versions that are carefully considered, and that work for the Astrologers using them, are valid in this context. The label just depends on where you are on the tree for any given purpose. It's not necessary to stay in one place, but there may be one you prefer most (or least). [IMO] A Trad (who most prefers the roots) should avoid being a stick in the mud, and a Mod (who most prefers a particular branch) shouldn't get TOO airy-fairie.

Branches break off, and so do leaves, as the seasons come and go. The roots will always be there.

It’s best if we take a chainsaw and cut off some parts before it falls on a house, car or person.

[Bunraku]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Ironically "mud" aka earth is essential for roots to thrive
and thus the trunk to thrive
and so on and so forth ad infinitum

It was a dangerous implication if you ask me.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Without roots there are no branches

Without roots there is no trunk
for the branches to do their branching


Ironically "mud" aka earth is essential for roots to thrive
and thus the trunk to thrive
and so on and so forth ad infinitum


I await your exposition on twigs

And, air contains the carbon dioxide necessary for the tree to "breathe". A tree divided against itself cannot stand! Astrology is like a mighty oak, rooted in the Earth, Sacred to Jupiter, and blessed by the Sun.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by david starling

And, air contains the carbon dioxide necessary for the tree to "breathe".
A tree divided against itself cannot stand!
Astrology is like a mighty oak, rooted in the Earth, Sacred to Jupiter, and blessed by the Sun.

And without water there is no mud

[Bunraku]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

And without water there is no mud

And chemotherapy = no more cancer

[david starling]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

And without water there is no mud

The roots provide water and nutrients from the Earth, Energy from the Sun (photosynthesis) through the leaves, carbon dioxide from the air--all the Elements are involved. Trees are awesome!